Quote, "Meat is Required for Clarity of Thought", Matt Dillahunty.
03 May 2019 [link youtube]
Moral Obligation vs. Moral Virtue, Objective Morality vs. Subjective Morality… Matt Dillahunty is not a philosopher, and he's nobody's hero: he uses these concepts not to solve problems, nor to raise important questions, as a philosopher might do… he uses them to offer insincere excuses, obfuscation and distractions.
#vegan #vegans #veganism
Youtube Automatic Transcription
Matt Dillahunty saying quote I don't
make arguments against veganism ellipses ever ellipsis but I'm starting to think that eating meat is required for clarity of thought Oh Matt old boy Oh Matt you're fifty years old and you don't really know where milk comes from Oh Matt we just saw you doing a two-and-a-half-hour debate that was ever so erudite and one-sided in which you all totally couldn't do anything with plead ignorance oh ho ho Matt you old rib tickler you Matt you dirt ignorant Texan ex-military no nothing no-talent bum what why is Matt Dillon's he taken seriously why he became a radio personality in Texas on Texas community radio on the basis of nothing he keep became known and to some extent respected for on the one hand you know being an agony aunt that's an old-fashioned slang term listening to people and their problems over the radio which is you know people called in and said boy I'm really upset because I've quit the church and now my whole family hates me doing that kind of sympathetic a reception call and then on the other hand you really he just bullied people on the phone it was really even there's there's no reason to respect this guy intellectually there never has been I don't make arguments against veganism ever Oh Matt Delonte continues and you still fail to accurately represent my position have some bacon and try again Oh Matt Oh Matt you slay me you slay me with your refined abate stylings and Sensibility could this be the same Matt Delonte who took on the area di't Richard I think high school dropout vegan gains and vintage to lose and then lie about it on the internet later in his latest interview with cosmic scams oh oh yeah you know a vegan gains he had some really bad arguments and in fact he even agreed with me yeah right Matt that's how that conversation Jesus Christ and he way to wrap this up Matt Dillahunty school continues yet more confusion in a sir shion's when the reality is that I'm correctly applying the burden of proof which if you could meet it oh another little witticism if you could meet the burden of proof me-80 question mark Oh Matt Delonte oh if you could meet that burden of proof you wouldn't keep me too tweeting against straw man adios and then oh oh here's the big conclusion moral obligation versus moral virtue to learn that first so look it's possible for me to imagine a conversation in which Matt Dillahunty was really using this distinction of moral obligation versus moral virtue to solve a problem that's a philosophy supposed to be all about and he's not I mean this is a totally snide and insincere you know dismissal of the problem now also the concept of burden of proof sometimes Bertie brew can be very important scientifically philosophically even legally this is a joke this is again this is just totally insincere um you know dismissal of veganism basically and again we've just seen recently how totally incapable he is of taking on taking on those kinds of questions those those kinds of problems if you've been watching this channel for a long long time I actually discussed the ethics of the fact we had a leader in the vegan movement we had a guy here on YouTube who photographed himself wearing a Nazi t-shirt and I point out look you know we're really judging here is not that the t-shirt does any harm because a lot of people use kind of phony utilitarian ethics here the t-shirt did not kill millions of people buying the t-shirt doesn't give money to eat off Hitler the Nazi Party he actually in that case made the t-shirt himself why is it so important I'm pretty sure it's because the judgment were making is on you it's on the kind of person you are and who you aspire to be the the judgment here about Matt Dillahunty is about what kind of man are you that's ultimately what this is if you go around wearing a t-shirt that says I don't care about greenhouse gas emissions pork and bacon or something if you were a t-shirt that says chicken wings for life or their I don't care about heart attacks you just want to eat beef you don't care about animal rights you just want to eat deep fried chicken that tells me a lot about you Matt it tells me a lot about your morality and the way you so cynically invoke you know moral obligation versus moral virtue which again from what I've seen well III don't okay if this were you know a legitimate area of philosophical inquiry if this is a philosophy that really meant something what problem does it solve what is the research question that is addressed by this now really really briefly I have been in several debates about the existence of objective morality with people who are sincerely interested in talking about it and one of the things that point out in those debates this isn't the end of the discussion I say look suppose you have two people and one believes the value of art is completely subjective it can never be you know fully specified iterated or it can never be made objective that ultimately beauty is in the eye of the beholder whether or not something is a great painting depends on different kinds of cultural and interpersonal and maybe even economic and aesthetic considerations that ultimately are utterly subjective they're no more real than a dream people decide the Mona Lisa is a great painting and then it's a great painting as a bunch of people feel that way and that's about it and people can change their minds work of art a film a movie is considered the greatest film of its era and ten years later doesn't seem so great anymore that that's it there's nothing objective and then suppose someone else enters that that debate that discourse says no they feel really strongly that there is a an objective an objective set of criteria that define some films as objectively good and some is objectively bad some paintings as objectively that there is some spectrum of objectively real criteria that can establish whether art is good or bad even if that were conceded unless their position is that all art can be objectively evaluate this way then the argument is ultimately ridiculous and spurious and immaterial because look if you take a great painting you've taken the Mona Lisa and you light it on fire and then you use display the burned ruins the burnt remains the Mona Lisa can you make an argument that objectively it's not a great painting anymore like of Jade's not visible and more it's been charred and and you know what's it's been damaged beyond recognition oh okay so gee we seem to be dealing with an objectively real criterion of something being a good painting like you can see it you know like okay a great work of architecture still has to be standing and not destroyed an earthquake a great film oh yeah we watching Game of Thrones recently and the lighting is so bad you know okay so maybe there are objective criteria for lighting and color balance it was something that once you're into objective criteria you're never going to be talking about the range of things that were really debating that really matter in real life in art so really really briefly if you have a bunch of applicants for a scholarship let's keep it on the same topic you have a bunch of aspiring young painters who send in their best works of art send in their drawings and their paintings and say hey I want a scholarship to go to arts college I want an opportunity to study at some some art academy you are not going to be debating if you were on the committee who chooses the winners and losers choose who gets the scholarship and who does not you are not going to be debating objectively great art an objectively terrible art wasn't being objectively good and bad art if any of the applicants are so terrible that there's no debate about that it's in that realm then those are not going to be what your attention to and eseni of them are so wonderful so go wow this kid is amazingly fantastic then they're in the pile of people who are definitely getting the this scholarship all of your time and energy is going to be on the cases that are near the border line near the cutoff where it's like well look we only have fifty scholarships we can give fifty students a chance this education so you're probably not even going to discuss the best 40 and you're not going to discuss the worst 200 however my new god okay there are going to be just a couple of cases near the cutoff line and all of the time and effort of the committee is going to be directed towards that so this brings us back to a case like Cuba a case like Iran okay Cuba is not Nancy Germany it's not there aren't gas chambers there isn't a holocaust going on there that's so unbelievably awful that it justifies invading Cuba and shutting down the gas chambers if it were it wouldn't be difficult to talk about right human rights problems in Iran they're bad not remotely as bad as let's see Germany it doesn't cross any of the thresholds where you can say okay look they're digging mass graves this is a situation so extreme that we have to have war intervention okay the other examples I used prostitution the view of the left wing and the right wing and the Center on prostitution it's a problem the corrupting influence of prostitution in society whether it's you know my ex-girlfriend going to her high school and they're being recruiters there or actually I've heard that a lot about Japan - they're being kind of recruiters on the streets of Tokyo okay you know there are there are these you know troubling questions about prostitution but this is not in the realm of some kind of objectively real humanitarian disaster where we then don't have to have the conversation okay drinking water is poisoning people and they're dropping dead in the thousands no debate it's an objectively real problem for government policy governments can intervene guess what even if it's counter to your constitution if you happen to be living in a country where like let's say that it said in the Constitution the federal government will have nothing to do with drinking water that remains the municipal governments problems just for the city code doesn't matter they'll send in the FBI or the CIA or the send in the National Guard they'll send in the army they'll do people are dropping dead because there's a drinking water problem we're into the realm of objectively real problems so again Oh at what point is it a moral obligation as opposed to a moral virtue Tabs government intervention that policy device should have these guns political measures it's irrelevant those are never going to be the cases or paying attention to we're always going to be looking at questions of virtue and we're gonna be looking at the most dubitable the most doubtful the most you know the the gray areas that are the hardest to deal with right and I don't I don't see anyone really sitting around wanting to morally ponder whether or not you should have an intervention when it's an absolute clear-cut case of mass poisoning mass murderers something you know okay these are these are areas where we need you know government intervention as as soon as well even an earthquake that's the earthquake that destroyed Haiti forget how many years ago now okay gee we'd we need some some kind of intervention okay you know what I've been to downtown Los Angeles I've been to the bit of the beach where was at Venice Beach those Angeles I could take some photographs of Venice Beach in Los Angeles where the humanitarian disaster looks worse than some parts of Haiti after the earthquake you know you got people you know sleeping on the street sleeping in tents you've got you've got a kind of slow-motion humanitarian disaster in Venice Beach and Los Angeles right we're never going to be discussing or debating the the situation's of moral obligation all of these debates are going to be in the area of moral virtue and they're going to be in the most gray the most indecisive the most difficult areas about you okay look guys I'll wrap it up for this video there um Matt Dillahunty always was an idiot his whole line of approach on objective morality and moral obligation is not a philosophy I would go so far to say that this is an anti philosophy because it's doing the exact opposite of what a philosophy ought to do philosophies are about problem solving methods they are not about obfuscation and all he's doing with his quote/unquote philosophy is obfuscating and evading the point when he is presented with a genuine philosophical problem and compared to the future of Iran the future of Cuba the future of Venice Beach Los Angeles or the future of prostitution veganism veganism has got to be one of the easiest moral quandaries to think your way out someone who dodged the call from vegan gains again and again and Gentiles you know being is trying to set up an appointment someone whose dodges you spend your whole life dodging these questions that's what you are man Matt Delonte you are a moral and intellectual coward and yet you've made a career out of grandstanding on what you yourself say is one of the simplest issues in the world to grandstand on you think you're a genius because you figured out that when you pray to God nobody is listening well clap-clap-clap you caught up with something most of us knew at 12 years old and that doesn't put you in any position of moral leadership it doesn't make you an intellectual it doesn't make you a philosopher it makes you apathetic self-important dried-up Texan military man and I know we all know but after he did the the radio show he used to post where they would go to go to dinner after there the radio show supporters of the show can come and eat here you can see the [ __ ] menu and Matt if you got to age 50 and you never really sat down and wonder oh where does cheese come from you're still catching up with a whole lot of stuff that we knew at about age 12 and ultimately the purpose of philosophy is not just to understand the world it's to change it I don't know how you've managed to go so far as a public intellectual well having absolutely no positive vision of the future of the world being a better place and of what you've got to do the sacrifices you've got to make the town of commitment and hard work you'd have to do to accomplish it it's just it's just too much to ask for Matt Dillahunty to stop eating bacon to stop eating cheese Matt when you read the history books who do you look up to I've never heard him talk I've never really heard him talk about books I read in that way he really seems to be a kind of a literate troglodyte to be quite honest with you but like you know if if you who are thus who are the heroes now for people in secularism I mean is it you know is it Galileo standing up and Diane you know for what he believes in from is it Socrates you know Socrates who ultimately was put to death for what he believed in you know whose shoes would you walk a mile with Matt I mean is it is it somebody like Martin Luther King whose life again died with a bullet to the head but it before that once you know Matt if you believe in this cause this benighted cause you've you've chosen for yourself I think it's time for you to stand up and start being a little bit more of a heroic figure if not at age 50 you know you know what one is it [Laughter] [Music]
make arguments against veganism ellipses ever ellipsis but I'm starting to think that eating meat is required for clarity of thought Oh Matt old boy Oh Matt you're fifty years old and you don't really know where milk comes from Oh Matt we just saw you doing a two-and-a-half-hour debate that was ever so erudite and one-sided in which you all totally couldn't do anything with plead ignorance oh ho ho Matt you old rib tickler you Matt you dirt ignorant Texan ex-military no nothing no-talent bum what why is Matt Dillon's he taken seriously why he became a radio personality in Texas on Texas community radio on the basis of nothing he keep became known and to some extent respected for on the one hand you know being an agony aunt that's an old-fashioned slang term listening to people and their problems over the radio which is you know people called in and said boy I'm really upset because I've quit the church and now my whole family hates me doing that kind of sympathetic a reception call and then on the other hand you really he just bullied people on the phone it was really even there's there's no reason to respect this guy intellectually there never has been I don't make arguments against veganism ever Oh Matt Delonte continues and you still fail to accurately represent my position have some bacon and try again Oh Matt Oh Matt you slay me you slay me with your refined abate stylings and Sensibility could this be the same Matt Delonte who took on the area di't Richard I think high school dropout vegan gains and vintage to lose and then lie about it on the internet later in his latest interview with cosmic scams oh oh yeah you know a vegan gains he had some really bad arguments and in fact he even agreed with me yeah right Matt that's how that conversation Jesus Christ and he way to wrap this up Matt Dillahunty school continues yet more confusion in a sir shion's when the reality is that I'm correctly applying the burden of proof which if you could meet it oh another little witticism if you could meet the burden of proof me-80 question mark Oh Matt Delonte oh if you could meet that burden of proof you wouldn't keep me too tweeting against straw man adios and then oh oh here's the big conclusion moral obligation versus moral virtue to learn that first so look it's possible for me to imagine a conversation in which Matt Dillahunty was really using this distinction of moral obligation versus moral virtue to solve a problem that's a philosophy supposed to be all about and he's not I mean this is a totally snide and insincere you know dismissal of the problem now also the concept of burden of proof sometimes Bertie brew can be very important scientifically philosophically even legally this is a joke this is again this is just totally insincere um you know dismissal of veganism basically and again we've just seen recently how totally incapable he is of taking on taking on those kinds of questions those those kinds of problems if you've been watching this channel for a long long time I actually discussed the ethics of the fact we had a leader in the vegan movement we had a guy here on YouTube who photographed himself wearing a Nazi t-shirt and I point out look you know we're really judging here is not that the t-shirt does any harm because a lot of people use kind of phony utilitarian ethics here the t-shirt did not kill millions of people buying the t-shirt doesn't give money to eat off Hitler the Nazi Party he actually in that case made the t-shirt himself why is it so important I'm pretty sure it's because the judgment were making is on you it's on the kind of person you are and who you aspire to be the the judgment here about Matt Dillahunty is about what kind of man are you that's ultimately what this is if you go around wearing a t-shirt that says I don't care about greenhouse gas emissions pork and bacon or something if you were a t-shirt that says chicken wings for life or their I don't care about heart attacks you just want to eat beef you don't care about animal rights you just want to eat deep fried chicken that tells me a lot about you Matt it tells me a lot about your morality and the way you so cynically invoke you know moral obligation versus moral virtue which again from what I've seen well III don't okay if this were you know a legitimate area of philosophical inquiry if this is a philosophy that really meant something what problem does it solve what is the research question that is addressed by this now really really briefly I have been in several debates about the existence of objective morality with people who are sincerely interested in talking about it and one of the things that point out in those debates this isn't the end of the discussion I say look suppose you have two people and one believes the value of art is completely subjective it can never be you know fully specified iterated or it can never be made objective that ultimately beauty is in the eye of the beholder whether or not something is a great painting depends on different kinds of cultural and interpersonal and maybe even economic and aesthetic considerations that ultimately are utterly subjective they're no more real than a dream people decide the Mona Lisa is a great painting and then it's a great painting as a bunch of people feel that way and that's about it and people can change their minds work of art a film a movie is considered the greatest film of its era and ten years later doesn't seem so great anymore that that's it there's nothing objective and then suppose someone else enters that that debate that discourse says no they feel really strongly that there is a an objective an objective set of criteria that define some films as objectively good and some is objectively bad some paintings as objectively that there is some spectrum of objectively real criteria that can establish whether art is good or bad even if that were conceded unless their position is that all art can be objectively evaluate this way then the argument is ultimately ridiculous and spurious and immaterial because look if you take a great painting you've taken the Mona Lisa and you light it on fire and then you use display the burned ruins the burnt remains the Mona Lisa can you make an argument that objectively it's not a great painting anymore like of Jade's not visible and more it's been charred and and you know what's it's been damaged beyond recognition oh okay so gee we seem to be dealing with an objectively real criterion of something being a good painting like you can see it you know like okay a great work of architecture still has to be standing and not destroyed an earthquake a great film oh yeah we watching Game of Thrones recently and the lighting is so bad you know okay so maybe there are objective criteria for lighting and color balance it was something that once you're into objective criteria you're never going to be talking about the range of things that were really debating that really matter in real life in art so really really briefly if you have a bunch of applicants for a scholarship let's keep it on the same topic you have a bunch of aspiring young painters who send in their best works of art send in their drawings and their paintings and say hey I want a scholarship to go to arts college I want an opportunity to study at some some art academy you are not going to be debating if you were on the committee who chooses the winners and losers choose who gets the scholarship and who does not you are not going to be debating objectively great art an objectively terrible art wasn't being objectively good and bad art if any of the applicants are so terrible that there's no debate about that it's in that realm then those are not going to be what your attention to and eseni of them are so wonderful so go wow this kid is amazingly fantastic then they're in the pile of people who are definitely getting the this scholarship all of your time and energy is going to be on the cases that are near the border line near the cutoff where it's like well look we only have fifty scholarships we can give fifty students a chance this education so you're probably not even going to discuss the best 40 and you're not going to discuss the worst 200 however my new god okay there are going to be just a couple of cases near the cutoff line and all of the time and effort of the committee is going to be directed towards that so this brings us back to a case like Cuba a case like Iran okay Cuba is not Nancy Germany it's not there aren't gas chambers there isn't a holocaust going on there that's so unbelievably awful that it justifies invading Cuba and shutting down the gas chambers if it were it wouldn't be difficult to talk about right human rights problems in Iran they're bad not remotely as bad as let's see Germany it doesn't cross any of the thresholds where you can say okay look they're digging mass graves this is a situation so extreme that we have to have war intervention okay the other examples I used prostitution the view of the left wing and the right wing and the Center on prostitution it's a problem the corrupting influence of prostitution in society whether it's you know my ex-girlfriend going to her high school and they're being recruiters there or actually I've heard that a lot about Japan - they're being kind of recruiters on the streets of Tokyo okay you know there are there are these you know troubling questions about prostitution but this is not in the realm of some kind of objectively real humanitarian disaster where we then don't have to have the conversation okay drinking water is poisoning people and they're dropping dead in the thousands no debate it's an objectively real problem for government policy governments can intervene guess what even if it's counter to your constitution if you happen to be living in a country where like let's say that it said in the Constitution the federal government will have nothing to do with drinking water that remains the municipal governments problems just for the city code doesn't matter they'll send in the FBI or the CIA or the send in the National Guard they'll send in the army they'll do people are dropping dead because there's a drinking water problem we're into the realm of objectively real problems so again Oh at what point is it a moral obligation as opposed to a moral virtue Tabs government intervention that policy device should have these guns political measures it's irrelevant those are never going to be the cases or paying attention to we're always going to be looking at questions of virtue and we're gonna be looking at the most dubitable the most doubtful the most you know the the gray areas that are the hardest to deal with right and I don't I don't see anyone really sitting around wanting to morally ponder whether or not you should have an intervention when it's an absolute clear-cut case of mass poisoning mass murderers something you know okay these are these are areas where we need you know government intervention as as soon as well even an earthquake that's the earthquake that destroyed Haiti forget how many years ago now okay gee we'd we need some some kind of intervention okay you know what I've been to downtown Los Angeles I've been to the bit of the beach where was at Venice Beach those Angeles I could take some photographs of Venice Beach in Los Angeles where the humanitarian disaster looks worse than some parts of Haiti after the earthquake you know you got people you know sleeping on the street sleeping in tents you've got you've got a kind of slow-motion humanitarian disaster in Venice Beach and Los Angeles right we're never going to be discussing or debating the the situation's of moral obligation all of these debates are going to be in the area of moral virtue and they're going to be in the most gray the most indecisive the most difficult areas about you okay look guys I'll wrap it up for this video there um Matt Dillahunty always was an idiot his whole line of approach on objective morality and moral obligation is not a philosophy I would go so far to say that this is an anti philosophy because it's doing the exact opposite of what a philosophy ought to do philosophies are about problem solving methods they are not about obfuscation and all he's doing with his quote/unquote philosophy is obfuscating and evading the point when he is presented with a genuine philosophical problem and compared to the future of Iran the future of Cuba the future of Venice Beach Los Angeles or the future of prostitution veganism veganism has got to be one of the easiest moral quandaries to think your way out someone who dodged the call from vegan gains again and again and Gentiles you know being is trying to set up an appointment someone whose dodges you spend your whole life dodging these questions that's what you are man Matt Delonte you are a moral and intellectual coward and yet you've made a career out of grandstanding on what you yourself say is one of the simplest issues in the world to grandstand on you think you're a genius because you figured out that when you pray to God nobody is listening well clap-clap-clap you caught up with something most of us knew at 12 years old and that doesn't put you in any position of moral leadership it doesn't make you an intellectual it doesn't make you a philosopher it makes you apathetic self-important dried-up Texan military man and I know we all know but after he did the the radio show he used to post where they would go to go to dinner after there the radio show supporters of the show can come and eat here you can see the [ __ ] menu and Matt if you got to age 50 and you never really sat down and wonder oh where does cheese come from you're still catching up with a whole lot of stuff that we knew at about age 12 and ultimately the purpose of philosophy is not just to understand the world it's to change it I don't know how you've managed to go so far as a public intellectual well having absolutely no positive vision of the future of the world being a better place and of what you've got to do the sacrifices you've got to make the town of commitment and hard work you'd have to do to accomplish it it's just it's just too much to ask for Matt Dillahunty to stop eating bacon to stop eating cheese Matt when you read the history books who do you look up to I've never heard him talk I've never really heard him talk about books I read in that way he really seems to be a kind of a literate troglodyte to be quite honest with you but like you know if if you who are thus who are the heroes now for people in secularism I mean is it you know is it Galileo standing up and Diane you know for what he believes in from is it Socrates you know Socrates who ultimately was put to death for what he believed in you know whose shoes would you walk a mile with Matt I mean is it is it somebody like Martin Luther King whose life again died with a bullet to the head but it before that once you know Matt if you believe in this cause this benighted cause you've you've chosen for yourself I think it's time for you to stand up and start being a little bit more of a heroic figure if not at age 50 you know you know what one is it [Laughter] [Music]